Toggle sidebar

Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Some ideas for next list...

Top-300 (201-300)
Top 10 players from each original 6 team (plus maybe add in Montreal Wanderers and original Ottawa Senators)...probably mostly redundant but might see some interesting twists with some players splitting their careers with 2 different teams.
Top - 50 players from 2000 season - present
 
I felt like we were really splitting hairs by the end of 200; top 300 would be rather chaotic. Connected to that, the work that would go into putting together a list of 300+ players to start with would be crazy. It would be so easy to overlook players.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jigglysquishy
For top 50 players from 2000-present, you could make a series of polls in the polls section. Get more voters. I feel 2000-present is about what the "main board" can handle
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jigglysquishy
blueandgoldguy said:
Some ideas for next list...

Top-300 (201-300)
Top 10 players from each original 6 team (plus maybe add in Montreal Wanderers and original Ottawa Senators)...probably mostly redundant but might see some interesting twists with some players splitting their careers with 2 different teams.
Top - 50 players from 2000 season - present
Click to expand...
The Project I'd like to see would be "Top 2-dozen Hall-of-Fame-Worthy Players Eligible for the H-o-F, But Not Yet Inducted."

It can wait until after @ResilientBeast 's pre-Consolidation Players initiative, however.

Who knows, maybe by the time RB wraps one up, I could even administer one of these things(?) [Can't do it just now, though...]
 
ChiTownPhilly said:
The Project I'd like to see would be "Top 2-dozen Hall-of-Fame-Worthy Players Eligible for the H-o-F, But Not Yet Inducted."

It can wait until after @ResilientBeast 's pre-Consolidation Players initiative, however.

Who knows, maybe by the time RB wraps one up, I could even administer one of these things(?) [Can't do it just now, though...]
Click to expand...

If we go by the top 200 project, there aren’t many guys left to finish the second dozen!

Not sure I didn’t miss someone but:
  1. Firsov
  2. Mikhailov
  3. Maltsev
  4. Martinec
  5. Holecek
  6. Vasiliev
  7. Krutov
  8. Petrov
  9. Suchy
  10. Kasatonov
  11. Tremblay
  12. Brewer
  13. Pospisil
  14. Joseph
  15. Alfredsson
  16. Yakushev
  17. Elias
  18. Starshinov
  19. Leclair
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hockey Outsider, tarheelhockey, Michael Farkas and 2 others
Yozhik v tumane said:
If we go by the top 200 project, there aren’t many guys left to finish the second dozen!

Not sure I didn’t miss someone but:
  1. Firsov
  2. Mikhailov
  3. Maltsev
  4. Martinec
  5. Holecek
  6. Vasiliev
  7. Krutov
  8. Petrov
  9. Suchy
  10. Kasatonov
  11. Tremblay
  12. Brewer
  13. Pospisil
  14. Joseph
  15. Alfredsson
  16. Yakushev
  17. Elias
  18. Starshinov
  19. Leclair
Click to expand...
Rendition of this list is a helpful starting point... but there's a distinction, more than just semantical, between the two questions "Next Top Players" and "Hall-of-Fame worthy players." Example- Willie O'Ree. Not a "top-player," but I don't think you'll find many who'd say "not Hall-of-Fame worthy." What about Bob(rov)? A case can be made that he's Hall-of-Fame worthy, even if not a 'top-(x) player.'

Conversation worth having, I think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yozhik v tumane
ChiTownPhilly said:
Rendition of this list is a helpful starting point... but there's a distinction, more than just semantical, between the two questions "Next Top Players" and "Hall-of-Fame worthy players." Example- Willie O'Ree. Not a "top-player," but I don't think you'll find many who'd say "not Hall-of-Fame worthy." What about Bob(rov)? A case can be made that he's Hall-of-Fame worthy, even if not a 'top-(x) player.'

Conversation worth having, I think.
Click to expand...

Agreed actually. I’ve thought that what we’ve missed out on in terms of sharing the knowledge of the HoH in the top 100/200 projects has been conveying some kind of consensus on the relative importance of a player’s contributions to the history of the game, which goes beyond how they compared head-to-head against top peers in their primes and the rarity of their NHL achievements.

Everyone has to learn it’s not specifically the NHL Hall of Fame at some point.

Mogilny isn’t in the Hall of Fame, and he’s not on the top 200, but I’d argue he’s infinitely more “HoF worthy” than Alfredsson or LeClair. Partly because he was such a thrill to behold, but certainly because of his story. And I still don’t think he tops the list of notable snubs.

In Sweden, whenever someone makes a top 10 of the greatest Swedish players of all time, Sven Tumba must feature lest one would look ignorant to forget perhaps not the best, but arguably the most important player in the history of Swedish hockey.

I’ve seen the idea of an all-Swede/all Hank and Dan Hall of Fame class mentioned around the boards, but I’d much prefer the message of a completely non-NHL class of deserving players to celebrate the history of the game rather than celebrating the back-to-back Art Ross twin curiosity/Conn Smythe/Conn Smythy runs of Swedes at this point. Unless I’m forgetting something obvious, don’t think there’s any decisive “first ballot” guy whose just become eligible in the last few years at any rate, so now would be a great time to strike.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: The Macho King
Yozhik v tumane said:
If we go by the top 200 project, there aren’t many guys left to finish the second dozen!

Not sure I didn’t miss someone but:
  1. Firsov
  2. Mikhailov
  3. Maltsev
  4. Martinec
  5. Holecek
  6. Vasiliev
  7. Krutov
  8. Petrov
  9. Suchy
  10. Kasatonov
  11. Tremblay
  12. Brewer
  13. Pospisil
  14. Joseph
  15. Alfredsson
  16. Yakushev
  17. Elias
  18. Starshinov
  19. Leclair
Click to expand...

Hopefully someone at the HHOF sees this thread, notices the bolded, and understands that it really needs to be addressed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Weztex, TheDevilMadeMe and The Macho King
Yozhik v tumane said:
Everyone has to learn it’s not specifically the NHL Hall of Fame at some point.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's a rather annoying assumption that many make, even if they don't vocalize it. For example, I don't know if Tumba should go in just as a player, but he should be in without a doubt as a builder. I believe we'd be missing some names we know how if not for his contributions to growing the sport in Sweden. That's the kind of resume that's more deserving than some that get in.

Edit: Actually, I should say you don't even have to leave North America to find that. Isn't there some guy named Creighton?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yozhik v tumane
tarheelhockey said:
Hopefully someone at the HHOF sees this thread, notices the bolded, and understands that it really needs to be addressed.
Click to expand...

If the HHOF is so establishment that WHA guys and union men have to pay a price...what are you expecting to happen with a bunch of evil commie pinkos...?

Obviously a facetious remark, but the avenue in for these guys is appreciably uphill and coated with salted butter...
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Macho King, ResilientBeast, seventieslord and 2 others
If we're changing positional stuff

Doug Bentley should be LW/C
Vaclav Nedomansky probably should be C/RW
Patrik Elias probably should be LW/C

Bentley was an all star at both positions. Nedomansky/Elias's secondary position is definitely secondary, but when Sergei Fedorov is listed as C/D...
 
  • Like
Reactions: seventieslord
blueandgoldguy said:
Some ideas for next list...

Top-300 (201-300)
Top 10 players from each original 6 team (plus maybe add in Montreal Wanderers and original Ottawa Senators)...probably mostly redundant but might see some interesting twists with some players splitting their careers with 2 different teams.
Top - 50 players from 2000 season - present
Click to expand...

I know others already commented but...

Top 300 - absolutely not. Top 200 was a great endeavor and I'm glad we did it, but I feel as though beyond 150 it became really hard. So little to differentiate. Going 200 to 300 would be just about impossible.

We've had discussions of top 10 (or mount rushmore top 4-5) from different teams often...don't think a full and involved project is really necessary for that.

Top 50 players from 2000 season to present - In our current top 200 list we must have at least ~30+ players from years 2000+ already no? Maybe a little's changed in past 2 years, but for most part just take the top players listed, and come up with the final ~10-15 missing and you're done. Not much of a project. And as others said - polls and main board will probably bring a larger audience, and pretty qualified audience for that period.

I know a few here want to do a pre-consolidation ranking next. Personally - I'd love for us to try something different, such as:

- Top 50 peaks (would have to define "peak", something around ~2-3 years or such)
- Top 50 seasons (individual seasons, only 1 per player, so we don't have Gretzky/Orr/Lemieux present ~25 times)

Every list we've ever done is about whose the "greatest". To me - 'greatest' implies in large part greater career. Doing top 50 peak/seasons would be all about who was "best". Big difference. Would be very interesting to do
 
bobholly39 said:
- Top 50 peaks (would have to define "peak", something around ~2-3 years or such)
- Top 50 seasons (individual seasons, only 1 per player, so we don't have Gretzky/Orr/Lemieux present ~25 times)
Click to expand...

But why?

Why are these preferable to an in-depth project exploring a rich area (pre-consolidation) of hockey history in a robust way?
 
  • Like
Reactions: rmartin65, Batis and seventieslord
ResilientBeast said:
But why?

Why are these preferable to an in-depth project exploring a rich area (pre-consolidation) of hockey history in a robust way?
Click to expand...
If I'm being a devil's advocate - the water being carried on pre-consolidation player research is going to be like... five people at most, while anyone can go to HR and pull information on how good Orr's '72 season was.

As an ATDer, there's no contest. I want a pre-consolidation project. Hell, as a history buff I want a pre-consolidation project over a bunch of debating over stuff that's been talked about 500 times on these prestigious fora. But I'm just guessing at the motivation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: seventieslord, jigglysquishy and ResilientBeast
The Macho King said:
If I'm being a devil's advocate - the water being carried on pre-consolidation player research is going to be like... five people at most, while anyone can go to HR and pull information on how good Orr's '72 season was.

As an ATDer, there's no contest. I want a pre-consolidation project. Hell, as a history buff I want a pre-consolidation project over a bunch of debating over stuff that's been talked about 500 times on these prestigious fora. But I'm just guessing at the motivation.
Click to expand...

This is definitely a good point, and we'll have to figure out a good way to get as much information as possible available to all the participants because the further we go back the bigger mess it's going to be. If we dip our toes into the 19th century that will be a huge pain.

Haviland Routh anyone? lol

There are some good free newspaper archives I've mined before for western papers and local libraries at least up here in Alberta actually give some good resources so hopefully others have some level of access
 
  • Like
Reactions: jigglysquishy and Batis
ResilientBeast said:
But why?

Why are these preferable to an in-depth project exploring a rich area (pre-consolidation) of hockey history in a robust way?
Click to expand...

Personal preference? Lots of people were excited at the prospect of ranking top peaks last time we brought it up. I don't really understand the question - seems pretty self explanatory.

Also - it's a lot easier to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom